On Aug. 15, the committee of adjustment voted to defeat the application to sever the heritage property located at 187 Queen St.

This, despite the warning by the applicant’s planner that, “If the consent were to be turned down, we would like to consolidate this application with the zoning application at the OLT (Ontario Land Tribunal) as one package,” to be appealed before that provincial body.

And, there is no question that both the defeat of the rezoning application by council and the rejection of the severance application by the committee of adjustment will be taken before the Ontario Land Tribunal — the applicant’s planner clearly stated that the paperwork requesting an appeal on the former decision had already been filed.

So, while members of the committee of adjustment listened to and weighed the presentations made against this severance overture by various Niagara-on-the-Lake’s residents, the applicant remains steadfast in his determination to ignore the wishes of the community and proceed with his plan to erode — or, more accurately — sacrifice this precious piece of Old Town’s cultural heritage landscape and history for financial gain.

No surprise there, considering his statement in an interview by David Burket published in Pelham Today (“THE CONVERSATION: A whistleblower blows,” July 5, 2017) wherein he said, “Does somebody want to pick a fight with me? Because ask around, you really don’t want to do that, because I don’t back down.”

But, to be clear, this issue is not about Mr. Hummel as an individual or a businessman.

No one achieves the success he has enjoyed without a singular focus on crossing the finish line first. And I should know, having spent decades of my life as a successful serial entrepreneur.

This pivotal historic property at Queen and Simcoe represents a rubicon — a line in the sand — which, if crossed, may very well be the tipping point that spells the end of a decades-long tradition of respecting and preserving the heritage of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

In the multiple, highly questionable planning applications this council has approved during its tenure in office, a couple of which are far larger (but design/planning permission still remains a question), it can be easy to forget that a modest property like 187 Queen St. can be that “single straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

There is a lesson to be learned from Save Our Rand Estate (SORE) — citizens can come together, utilize the incredible professional expertise of our residents to present and fund a successful overture before the land tribunal.      

I know this town has the expertise, but do we collectively have the will to save this vitally important heritage asset?

That’s up to you, dear readers.

Moving on, the town’s urban design committee has, with the recent resignation of one of its members, lost the minimum threshold of seats required to review and make recommendations on applications which will come before council.

Now, we must first understand that this committee’s recommendations have been under attack by certain councillors and staff for the last year (see: “Arch-i-text: Questions about role of town’s urban design committee,” Aug. 17, 2023).

And, two volunteer members — both of whom possess recognized academic and experiential qualifications vis-à-vis architecture and/or design — were suspended and/or seemingly dismissed: decisions that would seem to have been made behind closed doors.

This censure appears to have been based on comments by the individuals staff have apparently loosely characterized as “obstructionist.”

However, in reviewing various “livestream” urban design committee meetings, the statements that staff appeared to take exception to were most often focused on respecting and predicating their recommendations through the primary screen of the town’s official plan.

Apparently, from staff’s perspective, the suggestion that the town’s official plan should form the foundation of its review of applications as opposed to an obstacle that can safely be only peripherally referred to or ignored completely is contentious and obstructionist.

In any case, unless the two individuals in question are reinstated — and they choose to continue to serve — the urban design committee cannot perform its important mandate on behalf of the town and its residents.

Alternatively, the town could call for new volunteers to fill the vacancies.

In this case, the selection process needs to be open and transparent to the citizens of this community to ensure their best interests are represented by the new members of the committee.

In fact, it is my opinion that selection of volunteers for any and all of the town’s committees — normally done once every four years shortly after the municipal elections have been completed — should be equally open and transparent as opposed to the current practice of appointment behind closed doors.

That aside, the town needs the committee back to functioning status in short order. It’s my guess there is going to be a back-log of conditions contained within approved applications – not to mention new applications – which will be waiting to be addressed.

On another front, I was very gratified to read Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa’s comments in the “Home Sweet Home” series of articles in The Lake Report — particularly with respect to the utilization of excess town-owned properties for redevelopment (“Home Sweet Home: Mayor says he understands need for seniors housing,” Aug. 15, 2024).

Specifically, wherein he suggested that, “The redevelopment could include a joint venture, a full sale, partial development or a land lease.”

As regular readers of Arch-i-text may recall, in this column over past two years we have visited each of these concepts and provided examples of successful models underwritten the approaches both in Canada and the United States.

Put simply, when the cost of the land is removed from the total expense of development, the completed dwelling units are significantly more affordable.

And, on fallow land, this is truly where a land lease — properly formulated — combined with a joint venture really shines.

The town retains ownership of the lands in its portfolio, sets a minimal annual cost on a 50-year land lease, while the joint venture partners provide financial, legal and development services (etc.) that are facilitated by pre-established — based on clearly defined criteria for the property — municipal planning and permitting processes.

All of which creates the opportunity for the development of affordable housing and has been proven time and time again across North America.

This is why I find the lord mayor’s assertion that NOTL housing won’t be “affordable” somewhat questionable.

I suppose, if by “social housing” he is referring to the failed 20th-century model of “subsidized housing,” he may be correct.

On the other hand, should he be suggesting that affordable housing — based on the Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation’s 30 per cent of gross household income criteria — I would beg to differ.

As has been pointed out in this column before, (see: “Arch-i-text: More trouble, and potential solutions, to affordable housing crisis,” Feb. 8, 2024, and “Arch-i-text: Rebuilding community with affordable homes,” Jan. 19, 2022), it is eminently achievable provided the will and the vision is in place.

We can create places that our children, those employed within the town and our seniors can afford.

It has been and is being done elsewhere — why not here?

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.